CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Chapter Outline
4.1 The logic of discourse 116
4.2 External conjunction 122
4.3 internal conjunction 133
4.4 Continuatives 141
4.5 Displaying connections: conjunction analysis 143
4.6 Logical metaphor 148
4.7 Conjunction resources in full 152

Conjunction looks at interconnections between processes - adding, compar­

ing, sequencing, or explaining them. These are logical meanings that link
activities and messages in sequences.
This chapter has six sections. Section 4.1 outlines four general dimensions of
conjunction: the difference between conjunctions that relate activities and
those that organize texts; the role of conjunctions in what we expect to happen
in a text; the four main types of conjunction (adding, comparing, time and
consequence); and three types of dependency between clauses (paratactic,
hypotactic and cohesive). Section 4.2 describes conjunctions that are used to
relate activities; as they construe a field beyond the text these are known as
external conjunctions. Section 4.3 describes conjunctions that are used to
organize texts; as this organization is internal to the text, these are known as
internal conjunctions. Section 4.4 describes an additional small set of
conjunctive resources known as continuatives. Section 4.5 presents a method
for analysing conjunctive relations in a text, that displays how conjunction is
used to relate activities in sequences and to organize arguments.
Finally section 4.6 discusses what happens when conjunctions are realized by
other kinds of grammatical classes, such as verbs and nouns; this kind of
Working with Discourse

grammatical metaphor is known as logical metaphor. A method is presented

for unpacking logical metaphors to analyse activity sequences.

We showed an example of the work of conjunction in Chapter 1 (section 1.3), in

which Helena gave the conditions under which she would have joined the anti­
apartheid struggle:

I finally understand what the struggle was really about.

I would have done the same
had 1 been denied everything.
If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled with legislation.
If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted
better and got it.

We know these are conditions because of the conjunction if which serves to link
Helena’s contemplated action I would have done the same, with the conditions
under which she would have done so, I f my life was strangled. . . I f I had to watch
how white people became dissatisfied.... And the same conditional connection can
also be realized by inversion of Subject and Finite, had I been denied everything,
This kind of Subject-Finite inversion typically functions to ask a question (see
Chapter 7, section 7.3 below), but in this instance its meaning is not ‘question’ but
‘condition’.
This illustrates one reason why we need to set up conjunction as a discourse
semantic system. The meanings of conju nctio n are realized through conjunctions
such as if and then, but they are also realized by other kinds of wordings, and they
are frequently left implicit, for the reader or listener to infer. Where grammar-
based approaches such as Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Halliday and Matthiessen
(2004) treat conjunctions as a grammatical resource for linking one clause to the
next, the perspective we take here models conjunction as a set of meanings that
organize activity sequences on the one hand, and text on the other.

External and internal conjunction

conjunction in other words has two faces. One side of the system interacts with
ideation ,construing experience as logically organized sequences of activities. The
other side of the system interacts with periodicity , presenting discourse as logically
organized waves of information. Both systems use the same four general types of
logical relations: adding units together, comparing them as similar or different,
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

them in time, or relating them causally - as cause and effect, or

s e q u e n c in g

and conclusion. These four general types are known as addition,

e v id e n c e
comparison, time and consequence. The units they relate range from simple
clauses, to more complex sentences, to text phases, to stages of a genre.
por exam ple, Tutu uses co n ju nctio n to organize his exposition as a series of
three A rgum ents, each of which includes a ‘grounds’ phase and a ‘conclusion’ phase
(see C hapter 1, section 1.3 above). He introduces the second and third Arguments
with also and further to tell th e reader that these are additional steps. And within
each A rgum ent he uses Thus to tell the reader that what follows is a conclusion.
Here are the first lines of each phase:

Thesis So is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done?

Argument 1
'grounds' The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation the
application should be dealt with in a public hearing

'conclusion' Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation

Argument 2
'grounds' It is also not true that.. .amnesty encourages impunity because
amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty

conclusion Thus the process in fact encourages accountability

Argument 3
'grounds' Further, retributive justice.. .is not the only form of justice.. .there
is another kind of justice, restorative justice,

conclusion Thus we would claim that.. .justice is being served

Tutu uses addition {also, further) to add Arguments to support his Thesis. And he
uses consequence (thus) to draw conclusions from each Argument. These items are
not linking events in a field of experience beyond the text; rather they are used to link
logical steps that are internal to the text itself. We refer to this system for logically
organizing discourse as internal conjunction. And the system for linking events in an
activity sequence is known as externa! conjunction (after Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Conjunction and expectancy

conjunction helps to manage what we expect to happen in a text. In an exposition,
we expect a series of supporting Arguments, and Tutu confirms our expectations
by explicitly adding each one. We also expect conclusions to be drawn from the
arguments presented, and again Tutu meets our expectations by explicitly
Working with Discourse

announcing each conclusion with Thus. In Chapter 3 (section 3.5) we saw that the
unmarked relation in an activity sequence is simple addition, so that and is the
most common conjunction in personal recounts, adding one event to another:

The circumstances of my being taken, as I recollect, were that I went off to school in
the morning and I was sitting in the classroom and there was only one room where all
the children were assembled and there was a knock at the door, which the
schoolmaster answered. After a conversation he had with somebody at the door, he
came to get me. He took me by the hand and took me to the door. 1was physically
grabbed by a male person at the door, I was taken to a motor bike and heldbythe
officer and driven to the airstrip and flown off the Island (HREOC 1997: 99).

Indeed sequence in time is so consistently expected by story genres that there is

often no need to use any conjunctions:

On arriving back at Sandton Police Station, at what they call the Security Branch
the whole situation changed
I was screamed at, verbally abused
I was slapped around
I was punched
I was told to shut up
sit in a chair
then i was questioned
when ! answered the questions
I was told that i was lying
I was smacked again...

Conjunction between the first five activities in this sequence is left implicit - they
just happen one after another - until the field shifts from physical and verbal abuse
to interrogation, and this shift in field is signalled with the explicit conjunction
then. We can now expect a different set of activities - concerned with questioning
rather than beating. However the interrogators’ response to their victim’s answers
was unexpected, at least to the victim, and this is again signalled with an explicit
conjunction when.
This interplay of explicit and implicit conjunction to manage expectancy is well
illustrated in the first Incident of Helena’s story:

As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.

He was working in a top security structure,
it was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage.
A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy.
Sharply intelligent.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Even if he was an Englishman,

he was popular with ali the 'Boer' Afrikaners.
And all my girlfriends envied me.
Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.
'We won't see each other again.. .maybe never ever again.'
I was torn to pieces.
So was he.
An extremely short marriage to someone else failed
all because I married to forget.

The first phase is sequenced in time, from meeting to relationship to speaking about
marriage, but this sequence is expected by the field, as we discussed in Chapter 3
(section 3.5), so there is no need to make each step explicit with conjunctions. On the
other hand, Helena uses even to make it explicit that speaking about marriage was
more than we would normally expect at the beginning of a relationship. And in the
description phase that follows, she uses even if in a similar way, to tell us that an
Englishman being liked by the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners is counterexpectant (if they were
expected to like him she might have said because he was an Englishman). In contrast,
her girlfriends’ reaction is explicitly added by starting a sentence with And, letting us
know that their envy is entirely to be expected.
Then the next step from romance to tragedy is explicitly marked by Then,
signalling that a new phase is beginning which is likely to be counterexpectant, and
so probably bad news. After her reaction, So was he makes explicit that her lover’s
feelings about leaving were the same as hers, and that this was to be expected. And
the failure of her subsequent marriage was also completely predictable, made
explicit by the causal conjunction all because.
In sum the explicit conjunctions here realize our four types of conjunction:
addition, comparison, time and consequence, and Helena uses them deftly to
manage expectancy in the context of the events. They are set out in Table 4.1.
Like Tutu, Helena uses explicit conjunctions to signal the beginning of new
phases in her story. But whereas Tutu uses them to organize his argument, Helena
uses them to sequence the phases in time.

Table 4.1 Types of conjunction and expectancy

expectant counterexpectant

addition and all my girlfriends envied me

comparison so was he
time then one day he said he was going
on a 'trip'*
consequence all because I married to forget even if he was an Englishman

’ Note that then is not typically counterexpectant, but functions counterexpectantly in this context.
120 Working with Discourse

Incident 1
'meeting' As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties

'operations' Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip',

'consequences' More than a year ago, I met my first love again ....

Incident 2
'meeting' After my unsuccessful marriage, I met another policeman.

'operations' Then he says; He and three of our friends have been promoted

'consequences' After about three years with the special forces, our hell began.

interpretation
'knowledge' Today I know the answer to all my questions and heartache.

'black struggle’ I finally understand what the struggle was really about.

'white guilt' I end with a few lines that my wasted vuiture said to me one night;

Helena uses the time conjunctions Then and After to connect each phase to the
immediately preceding events, but the scope of finally is the story as a whole.
During all the preceding events Helena didn’t understand the struggle, but now she
finally does.
The other resources Helena uses here to sequence the story in time are
Circumstances - As an eighteen-year-old, one day, More than a year ago, After my
unsuccessful marriage, After about three years with the special forces, Today, These
Circumstances set the events in an exact time period, while time conjunctions
simply indicate the sequence.

Types of dependency
Before discussing each type of conjunction in more detail, we need to look briefly
at three gram m atical contexts in which they are realized, as different
conjunctions are used in each context. The first type links a sequence of
independent clauses:

I went off to school in the morning

and I was sitting in the classroom
and there was only one room where all the children were assembled
and there was a knock at the door

Each of the clauses beginning with and could stand independently. As each clause
is potentially independent, the dependency relation between them is an equal one.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

An equal dependency relation between two independent clauses is known as

tactic (from Greek para ‘beside’ and taxis ‘arrange’),
another conjunction used in paratactic relations is then:

I was told to shut up, sit in a chair

then i was questioned

These two clauses cannot be reversed without reversing the logical relation
between them. We cannot say, for example, *then I was questioned, I was told to
shut up. But the conjunction when does allow such a reversal:

when i answered the questions

I was told that i was lying
j was told that I was lying
when 1answered the questions

The reason is that these two clauses are not equal in status. One is independent,
and the other beginning with when is dependent on it. The when clause functions
as the context in which the other takes place. In this respect its function is similar
to a Circumstance of time such as after the questions I was told that I was lying,
which can come at the start or end the clause. An unequal dependency relation
between a dependent clause and an independent (dominant) clause is known as
hypotactic (from Greek hypo ‘under’).
Third, two sentences can be logically related by a conjunction such as Further or
Thus:

It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity...

Further, retributive justice.. .is not the only form of justice.
This is a far more personal approach, which sees the offence as something that has
happened to people and whose consequence is a rupture in relationships.
Thus we would claim that justice, restorative justice, is being served when efforts are
being made to work for healing, for forgiveness and for reconciliation.

We will refer to these kinds of dependency relations between sentences as cohesive

(following Halliday and Hasan 1976). As we go through each type of conjunction -
addition, comparison, time, consequence - we will give examples as far as possible
of the conjunctions used in each type of dependency relation - paratactic,
hypotactic and cohesive.
Finally there is one other type of linker aside from conjunctions. These are
known as continuity items or continuatives. Continuatives differ from conjunc­
tions in two ways. More often than not, conjunctions occur at the beginning of a
Working with Discourse

clause in English (although cohesive conjunctions can be positioned more

flexibly). But continuatives primarily occur within a clause, rather than at the start
And their options for logical relations are far more restricted. Two that we have
come across so far are even and also:

We even spoke about marriage.

It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity.

To put even at the start of this clause completely changes its meaning - rather than
spoke about marriage being unexpected, it is we that becomes unexpected. Also,
placing also at the start of a clause is a marked option, as it more typically occurs
within the clause.

External conjunction is concerned with logically organizing a field as sequences of

activities. For each general type of external conjunction - addition, comparison,
time, consequence - there are two or more sub-types, summarized in Table 4.2,

Table 4.2 Basic options for external conjunctions

addition addition and, besides, in addition

alternation or, if not - then, alternatively
comparison similarity like, as if, similarly
contrast but, whereas, on the other hand
time successive then, after, subsequently; before, previously
simultaneous while, meanwhile, at the same time
consequence cause so, because, since, therefore
means by, thus, by this means
purpose so as, in order to; lest, for fear of
condition if, provided that; unless

Each type is illustrated below for paratactic, hypotactic and cohesive relations.

External addition
We have seen that and can function to add clauses together in a paratactic
sequence, one after another:

... white people became dissatisfied with the best

and still wanted better
and got it
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down,

and they put me back on the chair
and handcuffed my hands through the chair

however conjunctions such as besides or as well as add a dependent clause to a

clause in a hypotactic sequence that is reversible:
d o m in a n t

As well as getting the best,

they still wanted better.
They still wanted better,
besides getting the best.

The flipside of adding clauses together is to make a choice between them, using the
conjunction or:

If the individual is terminally ill, disabled, suffering a debilitating condition

or will probably not survive the duration of the IR C ..,

This sentence gives us a series of alternative disabilities to choose from. The first
option can be marked with either:

Either the individual is terminally ill,

{or is) disabled,
(or is) suffering a debilitating condition
or will probably not survive the duration of the TRC,..

Only the last alternative choice is realized explicitly by or - the first two are
expressed implicitly by a comma (but can be made explicit as we have given in
brackets - or is). This is identical to the pattern we often find for and:

If the individual is terminally ill,

(and is) disabled,
(and is) suffering a debilitating condition
and will probably not survive the duration of the TRC...

Other conjunctions that realize alternation include if not-then, alternatively:

dependent
If they don't want restorative justice,
then they could choose retribution.

cohesive
A witness may be terminally ill.
Alternatively she might be disabled.
Working with Discourse

As well as adding clauses together they can also be subtracted, with neither and
nor:

.. .white people were neither dissatisfied with the best

nor wanted better
nor got it

in sum, options for external addition include adding, subtracting and alternation,
set out in Figure 4.1.

— add and, besides, as wet!as

l~~additive
addition L subtract nor; neither. ..nor
—alternative or, either...or,ifnot- then, alternatively
Figure 4.1 External addition

External comparison
The basic options for comparison are similarity versus difference. Perhaps the
most common kind of comparison is to contrast two clauses as different, using but:

This is not a frivolous question,

but a very serious issue.

Here Tutu contrasts two abstract things, a question and an issue. There is a lexical
contrast between their qualities - frivolous versus very serious - and this contrast is
made explicit with but. The particular type of difference here is opposition:
frivolous and serious realize opposite experiential meanings. But is used in
paratactic relations, and opposition can also be realized in hypotactic relations
with whereas, while:

Whereas this is a simple question,

it is a very serious issue.

As with lexical contrasts, there is more than one kind of logical difference. First,
one meaning can be replaced by another using instead of in place of rather than.
These are all used in hypotactic relations:

Instead of resting at night,

he would wander from window to window.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

A third kind of difference is to make an exception, using except that, other than,
a p a r t from, which are again hypotactic:

He wanted to rest at night

except that he kept having nightmares.

He used to rest at night

other than when he had nightmares.

C onjunctions like instead and rather can also be used as cohesive:

He should have slept at night.

Instead he would wander from window to window.

Of course the flipside of contrast is similarity, using like, as if:

The criminai and civil liability of the perpetrator are expunged

as if the offence had never happened.

Here Tutu uses as if to suggest that liability expunged is in some way similar to the
offence never happened. A cohesive conjunction that can express external similarity
is similarly:

Helena's first love worked in a top security structure.

Similarly her second love worked for the special forces.

Similarity can also be expressed by the continuative so, with Subject-Finite

inversion:

i was torn to pieces.

So was he.

In sum, options for external comparison include similarity or difference: opposite,

replacing or excepting, set out in Figure 4.2.

similar like, as if
c o m p a riso n -) [—opposite whereas, while
replacing insteadof,inplace of,ratherthan
excepting except that, otherthan, apartfrom
Figure 4.2 External comparison
Working with Discourse

External time
As we saw for Helena’s story and Leonard Veenendal’s testimony, time conjunctions
like then tell us that events follow each other:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

We even spoke about marriage.
Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.
I was told to shut up, sit in a chair,
then I was questioned.

This kind of time relation is successive - events happen one after another. Successive
conjunctions used in hypotactic relations include when, after, since, now that:

when I answered the questions

I was told that I was lying

In these examples, succession in time is running forward - from the first events to
the last. But conjunctions such as before, prior to allow us to run the succession
backwards:

before I was questioned

I was slapped around

In none of these examples is it clear how much time has elapsedbetween the two
'events, they just happen sometime before or after.Other successiveconjunction
indicate that an event happens im m ediately before or after, including once, as soon
as; until:

as soon as I answered
i was slapped again

I was slapped around

until I started fighting back

Cohesive successive conjunctions include subsequently, previously, at once:

I answered the questions.

Subsequently I was told that I was lying.
He said he was going on a 'trip'.
Previously it had been a beautiful relationship.
1 started fighting back.
At once four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

0 ne example of previously in Tutu’s exposition shows that cohesive conjunctions

can be positioned relatively freely in a clause:

..there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.
Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been
regarded as respectable members of their communities.

As well as succeeding each other, events can happen at the same time.
Simultaneous time is realized by as, while, when:

My murderer let me and the old White South Africa sleep peacefully,
while 'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from
society'.

Cohesive simultaneous conjunctions include meanwhile, simultaneously:

cohesive
The old White South Africa slept peacefully.
Meanwhile 'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from
society'.

So options for external time include successive: sometime or immediate and

simultaneous, set out in Figure 4.3.

sometime after, since, now that;before

successive
immediate once,as soon as; until
time-)
simultaneous as, while, when
Figure 4.3 Externa! time

Externa! consequence
There are four general types of external consequence: cause, means, condition,
purpose. Some basic options are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Basic external consequence

cause because, so, therefore

means by, thus
condition if.. .then
purpose so that, inorder to
Working with Discourse

Cause
When Helena’s first marriage failed, she explained why it failed, using all because-

An extremely short marriage to someone else failed

all because I married to forget.

The conjunction because means that one event obligates another to happen, as
cause and effect. By saying all because, Helena makes this obligatory relation even
stronger, i.e. there was only one reason - I married to forget. In other words, cause
modulates the relations between one event and the next, and like other such modal
meanings {described in Chapter 2 , section 2 .2 ) it is gradable; for example, she
could also have weakened the causal relation with partly because. This is an
important principle, particularly in science writing, where the strength of c a u sa l
relations is carefully evaluated.
Because functions in hypotactic relations; the corresponding paratactic
conjunction is so, and cohesive conjunctions include therefore, consequently:

I married to forget,
so my first marriage failed.
I married to forget.
Consequently my first marriage failed.

In the introduction to this chapter we saw that ordinary conjunctions such as then
can signal counterexpectancy in certain contexts. But for consequential conjunc­
tions this is a regular option, so that specific sets of conjunctions realize each type
of counterexpectant consequence. These are known as concessive conjunctions.
(We looked at concession in Chapter 2 (section 2 .3 ) in its role involving the
reader’s voice in appraisal.) Concessive cause is realized by although, even though,
even if but, however.
For example Helena’s marriage failed all because she married for the wrong
reasons, but it could have failed even though she married for the right reasons:

An extremely short marriage to someone else failed

even though I married for the right reasons.

Helena’s first love was popular with the Afrikaners even if he was an Englishman;
in a more tolerant South Africa he might have been popular because he was an
Englishman:

Because he was an Englishman,

he was popular with atl the 'Boer' Afrikaners.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

gut the most common realization of concessive cause is but:

He tried to hide his wild consuming fear,

but I saw it
i can't handle the man anymore!
But I can't get out

but can also realize comparisomdifference, which can be confusing. We

H o w ev er
can test whether the relation is concession by trying to substitute but with
hypotactic or concessive conjunctions that we know realize consequential
meanings, such as although however:

Although he tried to hide his wild consuming fear,

I saw it.
I can't handle the man anymore!
However I can't get out.

If we substitute conjunctions that realize contrast, they don’t make as much sense
(*/ can’t handle the man anymore! In contrast I can’t get out. *Whereas he tried to
hide his wild consuming fear, I saw it).

Means
While causes explain why an effect happens, the relation of means explains how
something happens, typically with by:

He expected to get amnesty

by confessing.
The objectives of the Commission shall be to promote national unity and reconciliation
by establishing as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of
the gross violations of human rights.

Here the Commission intends to use establishing as complete a picture as possible

as the means to promote national unity and reconciliation. Whereas cause obligates
an effect to follow, the relevant meaning here is ability. Tutu’s argument is that by
establishing a complete picture, the Commission will be able to promote unity and
reconciliation.
The hypotactic conjunction by is perhaps the most common way we express
means. Other conjunctions of means include thus, by this means:

He expected amnesty.
Thus he confessed.
Working with Discourse

As complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the gr0ss
violations of human rights will be established.
By this means the Commission will promote national unity and reconciliation.

With concessive means, one event is unable to happen, in spite of enough having
been done to enable it:

Even by confessing
he didn't get amnesty

National unity and reconciliation may still not be promoted

even by establishing as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent
of the gross violations of human rights.

And but can also be used for concessive means:

He confessed
but he didn't get amnesty.

Purpose
Purpose is concerned with actions and intended outcomes. A common conjunction
for purpose is in order to:

The RRC committee will use the following two information instruments,
in order to make an informed recommendation.

Here the RRC committee’s purpose is to make an informed recommendation. To

achieve this, their action is to use two information instruments. Whereas cause
obligates an effect to follow, with purpose the relevant modal meaning is
inclination. We take an action because we desire an outcome.
As with by for expressing means, the hypotactic conjunction to is a common
way of expressing purpose:

To make an informed recommendation,

the RRC committee will use the following two information instruments.

Other conjunctions that realize purpose include so that, in case:

The RRC committee will use the following two information instruments
so that it can make an informed recommendation,

These purpose conjunctions (in order) to, so as, indicate that the outcome is
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

d e s ire d . But there is another kind of purpose where the outcome is feared - using
lest o x for fear of:

the RRC committee will use the following two information instruments
lest it make an uninformed recommendation.

With concessive desire, an action is performed without the effect occurring:

The RRC committee used two information instruments,

without being able to make an informed recommendation.
The RRC committee used two information instruments,
even so they could not make an informed recommendation.

As fear is already a negative option, there is no concessive alternative.

Condition
Condition is the relation between an outcome and the conditions under which it
may occur, as we saw in Helena’s story:

I would have done the same

had i been denied everything.
If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled with legislation.
If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted
better and got it.

With condition the relevant modal meaning is probability. Helena considers it

likely that she would join the struggle under sufficient conditions; and the more
oppressive the conditions, the more likely she would have been to do the same.
Other conjunctions that realize condition include if ..then, provided that, so
long as:

If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled,

then I would have done the same.

I would have done the same

provided that there was no risk to my relaxed and comfortable way of life.

These are all conditions under which an event may happen. On the other hand,
unless introduces conditions that close off the possibility of an event happening:

... the application should be dealt with in a public hearing

unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
Working with Discourse

With concessive condition, an effect won’t occur even if a condition is met:

I would not have done the same

even if 1had known the truth

Options for external consequence, including expectant and concessive cause

means, purpose and condition, are shown in Figure 4.4.

expectant because, so, therefore

cause
concessive although, even though, but, however

expectant by, thus

•means -)
concessive even by, but

expectant so that, in order to, in case

consequence - )
desire
purpose concessive even so, without

fear lest, for fear of

■expectant if, then, provided that, as long as

open
condition -A •concessive even if, even then

closed unless

Figure 4.4 External consequence

The full system for external conjunction is displayed in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 General options for external conjunction

Addition additive adding and, besides, both.. .and

subtracting nor, neither.. .nor
alternative or, either.. .or, if not.. .then
Comparison similar like, as if
different opposite whereas, while
replacing instead of, in place of, rather than
excepting except that, other than, apart from
Time successive sometime after, since, now that; before
immediate once, as soon as; until
simultaneous as, while, when
Cause expectant because, so, therefore
concessive although, even though, but,
however
Means expectant by, thus
concessive even by, but
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Condition open expectant if, then, provided that, as long as

concessive even if, even then
closed unless
purpose desire expectant so that, in order to, in case
concessive even so, without
fear lest, for fear of

4.3 Interna! conjunction

The roies of internal conjunction in logically organizing discourse have become
particularly elaborated in the written mode, building on older spoken ways of
meaning. For this reason, internal conjunction includes the same four logical types
as we have seen for external conjunctions. Furthermore many of the items that
express internal relations are the same as external conjunctions, such as also, thus,
but other internal conjunctions are quite different. The basic options are outlined
in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Basic options for internal conjunctions

addition additive further, in addition

alternative alternatively
comparison similar similarly, for instance
different on the other hand, in contrast
time successive firstly, finally
simultaneous at the same time
consequence concluding therefore, in conclusion, thus
countering admittedly, nevertheless

Interna! addition
We have already seen how internal addition can be used to add arguments in an
exposition:

Argument 1 The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation the
application should be dealt with in a public hearing
Argument 2 It is also not true that ... amnesty encourages impunity because
amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty
Argument 3 Further, retributive justice.. .is not the only form of justice., .there
is another kind of justice, restorative justice,

In the following spoken example (from the film Forgiveness - see Chapter 7),
Sannie adds a judgement to her negative response:
Working with Discourse

Coetzee: Won't your parents have any questions, you know, about what
happened?
Sannie: - No,
and that's wrong.

Other conjunctions that express internal addition include furthermore, moreover

in addition, as well, besides, additionally.
As with external addition, we can also add alternative arguments, using the
internal conjunction alternatively:

Retributive justice is one form of justice.

Alternatively there is another kind of justice, restorative justice.

There is also a set of conjunctions that are commonly used in spoken discourse to
add new stages to what is being said - now, well, alright, okay. Here is an example
from Chapter 7:

Luke: You know I missed you two fuckers.

Llewelyn: Sorry I can't say the sameLuke.
Zuko: Yeah me too.
Luke: Well fuck you, man.

And there are other common items that are used to add a ‘sidetrack’ to the flow of
discourse - anyway, anyhow, incidentally, by the way. Here’s a couple of examples
from an anecdote about language teaching and language knowledge:

A teacher was confused about which of affect and effect was the noun or verb (it's
affect verb, effect noun by the way, except for one formal meaning of effect 'succeed
in causing to happen'), or was perhaps unable to recognise the noun or verb in the
sentence he was policing. He marked the student wrong, suggesting affect for effect
or vice versa (I can't recall which). Anyhow, as it turned out, the student had been
right; the teacher got it wrong. (Martin (2000), Grammar meets Genre).

Options for internal addition are summed up in Figure 4.5.

j~additive further, moreover, in addition; as well, besides, additionally

|— developing 1
I—alternative alternatively
ad dition-)
“ framing now, well, alright, okay
staging
-sidetracking anyway, anyhow, incidentally, by the way

Figure 4.5 Options for internal addition

 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Internal comparison
Internal comparison provides a rich set of resources for written text, enabling
writers to compare and contrast positions and evidence, rephrase, exemplify,
generalize and specify.
One kind of internal similarity is to simply say that two ideas are the same in
some way, using similarly or again:

Relations of class to member can be used cohesively between messages

Again part-whole relations can be used cohesively between messages

When Helena says I envy and respect the people of the struggle she implies something
praiseworthy about the character of the people.
Similarly, she morally condemns those at the top for bloody murder, without explicitly
judging their character.

The similarity signalled by Similarly here is that Helena’s praise and condemnation
are both implicit. The conjunction makes it clear to the reader that we are focusing
on two similar things.
As with addition, some conjunctions such as similarly can realize either external
or internal comparison. We have to ask whether the clause introduced by the
conjunction serves to compare events, things or qualities (external), or to compare
one argument with another (internal).
However there are many other variations on internal similarity, including
reformulating, exemplifying, generalizing and specifying. Ideas may be reformu­
lated with that is, i.e. In this book we often state something in commonsense terms,
and then reformulate it more technically:

Attitudes have to do with evaluating things, people's character and their feelings.
Such evaluations can be more or less intense,
that is they may be more or less amplified.

Exemplification uses for example, for instance, e.g. to rework a general statement
with a specific instance. Here Tutu gives an example of a condition under which an
application would not be heard in public:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
{for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).

But exemplifying is just one way of reworking a statement as more specific or more
general Other related conjunctions include in general, in particular, in short. Here
are some examples from this book:
Working with Discourse

Attitudinal lexis plays a very important role in Helena's narrative,

as it does in general across story genres.
Layers of New develop the point of a text,
in particular they focus on expanding the ideational meanings around a text's field

Expectancy may also be adjusted with in fact, indeed, at least. By repeatediy

narrowing the conditions for a public hearing, Tutu leads us to expect that public
hearings almost never occur. But he then counters this expectation by saying w h at
happens in fact:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
where the offence is a gross violation of human rights - defined as an abduction,
killing, torture or severe ill-treatment
unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).
In fact, virtually all the important applications to the Commission have been considered
in public in the full glare of television lights.

It is this strategy of leading us to expect one thing, and then countering it with
‘reality’, that enables Tutu to make his conclusion seem natural, simply by using
Thus:

Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.

We don’t mean to imply that we think Tutu’s conclusion is wrong. Rather he has
argued it effectively by pre-empting any objections and countering them.
Likewise indeed means ‘even more than expected’, while at least means ‘less
than expected’. Tutu argues that losing the right to sue is a higher than expected
price to pay:

.., the victim loses the right to sue for civil damages in compensation from the
perpetrator.
That is indeed a high price to ask the victims to pay...

Helena claims that her men are victims of spiritual murder, and that being unable
to rest is less than they should expect:

Spiritual murder is more inhumane than a messy, physical murder.

At least a murder victim rests.

An example from the spoken mode is the following (from Forgiveness), in which
Zako counters Luke’s expectant question:
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Luke: You believe this shit?

Zako: Actually I do.

^ at of difference? As we saw for lexical contrasts in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2),

differences are either oppositions or converses. We can oppose ideas using rather,
by contrast, on the other hand:

This is not a frivolous question,

rather it is a very serious issue.

To this point we have looked at clauses and their elements from the perspective of
discourse. Grammarians, on the other hand, look at elements of clauses from the
perspective of the grammar

Conversely is used to reverse two aspects of a message. In this example Malinowski

interprets texts from the perspective of social contexts, whereas we suggest that
contexts can only be interpreted as they are manifested in texts:

Malinowski interpreted the social contexts of interaction as stratified into two levels,
'context of situation' and 'context of culture', and considered that a text (which he
called an 'utterance') could be understood only in relation to both these levels.
Conversely, we could say that speakers' cultures are manifested in each situation in
which they interact, and that each interactional situation is manifested verbally as
unfolding text.

Options for internal comparison are summed up in Figure 4.6,

compare similarly, again

abstract that is, i.e., for example, e.g.

genera! in general, in particular, in short

comparison--*
adjust in fact, indeed, at least

oppose rather, by contrast, on the other hand

different--^
i—converse conversely

Figure 4.6 Internal comparison

interna! time
Internal time is a small set of resources for indicating that a new stage is
beginning firstly, second, next, finally, at the same time. As such they can be used
in similar ways to internal addition. So Tutu could have staged his argument as
follows:
Working with Discourse

Argument 1 Firstly the Act required that where the offence is a gross violation
the application should be dealt with in a public hearing...
Argument 2 Secondly it is not true that amnesty encourages impunity because
amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty...
Argument 3 Finally, retributive justice.. .is not the only form of justice.. .there
another kind of justice, restorative justice...

In this book we also often use internal time like this to make the steps of our
discourse clear to the reader:

To begin with, the 'falling in love' phase can be divided into two parts - 'meeting' the
young man, and then a 'description' of his qualities...
Secondly we can divide the 'operations' phase into two parts - the 'news' about
leaving, and the lovers' 'reaction' to the news...

We often use next in this way, to tell the reader we are starting a new stage:

So evaluations can be divided into three basic kinds according to what is being
appraised - (i) the value of things, (ii) people's character and (til) people's feelings.
Next let's look at how attitudes are amplified...

In the spoken mode, internal time may also be used to sequence arguments. In the
following example (from Forgiveness), Llewelyn’s first proposition is dismissed so
he asks for a second:

Llewelyn: I say maybe it was you who gave the copsDaniel's name.
Luke: - Are you fucking berserk?
Llewelyn: - Then who did?

These are all examples of internal succession - they order the steps in the text’s
internal logic as first, second, next and so on. But it is also possible to say that an
argument, or piece of evidence, is simultaneous with another, using still or at the
same time. The following example is from a report about our literacy work:

Significant increases in student achievement have been measured.. .the average

improvement in reading and writing was 2.5 levels...
At the same time, teachers have noted a range of student learning outcomes that are
more difficult to measure, like an increased level of student engagement in their
learning.

Again, many conjunctions can realize either external or internal time - first, next,
finally, at the same tim e... We have to ask whether the clause introduced by the
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

serves to order the sequence of events (external), or to order the

c o n ju n c tio n

of arguments in the discourse (internal).

seq u en ce

Options for internal time are summed up in Figure 4.7.

ordering first,secondly, third,next,previously

successive
terminating finally,lastly
time-)
r- adjacent atthesame time
simultaneous
L interrupted still

Figure 4.7 Internal time

internai consequence
internal consequence is concerned with drawing conclusions from arguments, and
countering them. We have already seen how Tutu uses Thus to signal a conclusion
for each of his Arguments:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing ...
Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation
.. .amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...
Thus the process in fact encourages accountability
.„ .there is another kind of justice, restorative justice,
Thus we would claim that... justice, is being served

Conjunctions such as thus, consequently, in conclusion signal that a conclusion is

being drawn. By this means the conclusion is construed as the expected outcome of
the argument that has been presented.
In the spoken mode, so is commonly used for internal consequence:

Landlady: So, you're off. (on entering room)

Coetzee: - Yes.
Landlady: ~ Weil 1hope you enjoyed your stay. Did you get what you wanted
from the Grootbooms?
Coetzee: - Yes.
Landlady: - So, what is your connection with that family? Really?
Coetzee: ~ Good-bye. Their son Daniel didn't die in a car hijacking. He was a
freedom fighter and 1 killed him. At the time 1was in the police
force. But it was murder.

Another kind of internal consequence is to justify an argument, using after all:

Working with Discourse

On the face of it, we might argue that the evaluation in Helena's story comes fro^
Helena.
She's the narrator after ail.

In contrast, arguments may be dismissed with anyway, anyhow, in any case, at any
rate:

There have already been reports of taxis putting up 'out of service' signs and people
changing seats on buses when confronted by dark-skinned people -
as if changing your seat would save you if a bomb went off anyway

Arguments can also be conceded, with admittedly, needless to say, of course:

Stated in these terms, the victory over apartheid seems like a simple one of right over
wrong, good over evil.
But of course social conflicts are rarely so simple

Or an argument may be countered as unexpected, with nevertheless, nonetheless,

still:

While the authors considered this two-component definition,

they nevertheless favoured one component over the other one, behaving as if the two
components could be taken separately

Internal counterexpectant consequence is known as concessive. In speech it is

commonly realized by but:

Coetzee: I told all this to the Commission.

Ernest: - Yes,
but now you're telling us.

Options for internal consequence are summed up in Figure 4.8.

conclude thus, hence, accordingly, in conclusion, consequently
r~ concludirtg-)T
L justify after ail
consequence
dismiss anyway, anyhow, in any case, at any rate

countering concede admittedly, of course, needless to say

unexpected nevertheless, nonetheless, still

Figure 4.8 Internal consequence

The full system for internal conjunction is displayed as Table 4.6.

 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

fable 4 6 General options for internal conjunction

developing additive further, furthermore, moreover, in

Addition
addition, as well, besides,
additionally
alternative alternatively
staging framing now, well, alright, okay
sidetracking anyway, anyhow, incidentally, by
the way
Comparison similar compare similarly, again
rework that is, i.e., for example, for
instance, e.g., in general, in
particular, in short
adjust in fact, indeed, at least
different oppose rather, by contrast, on the other
hand
converse conversely
Time successive ordering first, secondly, third, next,
previously
terminating finally, lastly
simultaneous adjacent at the same time
interrupted still
Consequence concluding conclude thus, hence, accordingly, in
conclusion, consequently
justify after all
countering dismiss anyway, anyhow, in any case, at
any rate
(concessive) concede admittedly, of course, needless to
say
unexpected but, however, nevertheless,
nonetheless, still

4,4 Continuatives
As we predicted at the start of this chapter, we now need to mention a small set of
linkers that are different from conjunctions. Well refer to these here as
continuatives. Logical relations realized by continuatives include addition,
comparison and time:

addition too, also, as well

comparison so (did he); only, just; even
time already; finally, at last; still; again
Working with Discourse

We have actually discussed several of these already, without explicitly distinguish­

ing them from conjunctions. We met the continuative also in Tutu’s exposition:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity .. .because
amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...

The kind of logical relation expressed by this continuative is addition. Other

continuatives realize types of comparison 50 (did he), even, only, just:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

We even spoke about marriage.
Amnesty didn't matter.
It was only a means to the truth.

And other continuatives realize time:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best
and still wanted better and got it.

I finally understand what the struggle was really about.

'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Instead of coming at the beginning of the clause, continuatives typically occur next
to the finite verb within the clause. Finite verbs are the ones that express tense or
modality (see Chapter 7, section 7.3, below). They are underlined as follows: is also,
so was, even spoke, was only, still wanted, finally understand, were again. ..
However, another perspective on continuatives is their role in managing
expectancy. On this criterion we can group together already, finally, still, yet, only,
just, even, since they all signal that an activity is in some way unexpected. This has
already been touched on in Chapter 2 (section 2.4) in the discussion of concession
as one kind of source for evaluations. For example, comparative continuatives
indicate that there is more or less to a situation than might be expected. So it was
more than we could expect of the relationship, to even speak about marriage:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

We even spoke about marriage.

But it was less than we might expect of amnesty, that it was only a means to the truth:

Amnesty didn't matter,

it was only a means to the truth.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Temporal continuatives indicate that something happens sooner or later, or

ersists longer, than one might expect. Helena is appalled at how white peoples’
greed persists longer than might be reasonably expected:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best
and still wanted better and got it.

Helena also uses finally to signal that it took longer than expected to understand
the struggle:

1finally understand what the struggle was really about.

So we can classify continuatives both by the type of logical relations, and the type
of expectancy they realize, as in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Continuatives

logical relation EXPECTANCY

addition neutral too, also, as well
comparison neutral so (did he)
less than only, just
more than even
time sooner already
longer finally, at last
persistent still
repetitive again

To this point we have illustrated how conjunction works to connect messages in

discourse, and we have accumulated the resources that speakers and writers can
use for conjunction. We will now apply these resources to analysing the logical
organization of discourse, using diagrams with three elements. To begin with we
need some simple labels for kinds of conjunction. These are set out in Table 4.8.
Second, we need to show connections between messages, using dependency
arrows. We can use these to indicate whether the conjunction is external or
internal, by drawing lines on the right for external and on the left for internal. It is
also useful as a check to insert conjunctions in parenthesis where the connections
are implicit. This is illustrated as follows:
Working with Discourse

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm gir!

simil (that is) As an eighteen-year-oid, I met a young man in his twenti
succ Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.

This type of diagram drawing connections between elements is known as a

reticulum. In this example, Then explicitly signals succession between the second
and third clauses. This is external succession of events in the story, so we have
drawn the connection on the right. But there is also an implicit connection betw een
the first and second clauses. The Orientation My story begins in my late teenage
years.. . is elaborated by the first event As an eighteen-year-old I m et.. so the
logical relation between these clauses is one of similarity: reworking. To show this
we have inserted an implicit conjunction in brackets (that is), and the connection
is drawn on the left.

Table 4.8 Abbreviations for conjunction types

addition additive add

alternative alt
comparison similar simil
different diff
time successive succ
simultaneous simul
consequence means means
consequence consq
condition cond
purpose purp

This example shows how phases are connected within the first Incident of
Helena’s story. It is possible by these means to show all the logical connections in a
text, but to simplify the presentation we can first show in one diagram how each
generic stage and discourse phase is connected, and then show the connections
within each stage in a separate diagram. This allows us to see a text’s overall logical
structure, before examining more local connections. To begin with we’ll show
connections between stages and phases in Helena’s story, in Figure 4.9. First let’s
glance again at this structure of stages and phases:

Orientation My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the

Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State.
Incident 1
‘failing in love' As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man...
'operations' Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.
'repercussions' More than a year ago, I met my first love again...
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Incident 2
'falling in love' After my unsuccessful marriage, I met another policeman.
'operations Then he says: He and three of our friends have been promoted.
'repercussions' After about three years with the special forces, our hell began.
Interpretation
'knowledge' Today I know the answer to all my questions and heartache.
'black struggle' I finally understand what the struggle was really about.
'white guilt' What do we have? Our leaders are too holy and innocent.
Coda I end with a few lines that my wasted vulture said to m e...

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl...

(that is) As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.

Then one day he said he was going on a ‘trip’.

More than a year ago, i met my first love again ....

(then) After my unsuccessful marriage, I met another policeman.

Then he says: He and three of our friends have been promoted.

(then) After about three years with the special forces, our hell began.

(now) Today I know the answer to all my questions and heartache.

1finally understand what the struggle was really about.

(by contrast) What do we have?

(lastly) I end with a few lines that my wasted vulture said to me one
night:

Figure 4.9 Conjunction between stages and phases in Helena's story

Note that in Figure 4.9 we have allowed at least one line between each connected
figure, so that we can draw the connection. Most of the connections are external
succession, as the story unfolds in time (drawn on the right). Some are realized
explicitly by conjunction {Then, again, Then, finally), but others are realized by
circumstances (After my unsuccessful marriage, After about three years, Today), so
it is a simple matter to show this succession by inserting (then) in brackets.
Most of these successive connections are simply between phases as the story
unfolds, but when we get to the Interpretation, their scope includes the whole story.
They connect the Interpretation right back to the Orientation (My story begins. ..),
spanning all the events between, as we have drawn. The same is also true of the
internal connection between the Coda (I end with a few lines...) and the
Orientation. This internal succession is realized lexically with 1 end, which we have
rendered as the conjunction (lastly), and connected back to the start.
Working with Discourse

We have already discussed the implicit similarity between the Orientation and
first Incident, rendered as (that is). There is also an implicit contrast between th e
two Interpretation phases of ‘black struggle’ and ‘white guilt’, which we h a v e
shown with (by contrast).
By these simple techniques we can show how a text unfolds logically, by-
conjunction between figures, phases and text stages. The relation may be im p lic it
but is apparent lexically as a circumstance (e.g. After about three years), a process
(I end), or participants (the people of the struggle vs our leaders), and so can be
rendered as a conjunction. We can simply show whether it is external or internal by
drawing connections on the left or right, and we can also show their scope. O fte n
more than one interpretation of implicit conjunction or scope of conjunction is
possible. What is important is teasing out the discourse patterns they realize. Let’s
now turn to the discourse patterns within Helena’s first Incident, shown in F ig u re
4.10.
As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.

He was working in a top security structure.

succ (then) It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
*>
We even spoke about marriage.
A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy.
Sharply intelligent.
cond Even if he was an Englishman,
he was popular with all the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners.
add And all my girlfriends envied me.
succ Then one day he said he was going on a ‘trip’. ‘We won’t see
each other again... maybe never ever again.’
consq (so) i was torn to pieces.

simil So was he.

succ (then) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed
consq all because I married to forget.

Figure 4.10 Conjunction within one stage of Helena's story

Within this stage, connections are all external, as Helena recounts the events and
describes her love. To begin with, succession is expressed lexically (It was the
beginning...), and we have rendered it with (then), since the relationship implicitly
follows the first meeting. Then unexpected contrasts are realized explicitly by even
and Even if, but note that the direction of the latter connection is forward (to he
was popular.. .) rather than back, like most connections. The addition of her
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

'rifriends’ reaction is also explicit (And), as is the succession of the ‘operations 5

phase (Then). We have drawn the scope of this succession back to the beginning o f
a beautiful relationship. We have then rendered the connection between his leaving
and H elena’s reaction (1 was torn to pieces) as consequence (so), and of course his
re a c tio n is the same (So was he). The next event in the succession is her short
marriage, rendered with (then), and th is is followed by its cause.
Let’s now see how Tutu uses conjunction to organize his exposition, in Figure
4.U.
So is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done?

succ (firstly) The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public
^ hearing

consq Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the
perpetrator.

^ add It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity in the
sense that perpetrators can escape completely the consequences ...

consq because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty, who accept
responsibility for what they have done.

consq Thus the process in fact encourages accountability rather than the opposite.

^ add Further, retributive justice ... in which an impersonal state hands down
punishment... is not the only form of justice.

comp (that is) I contend that there is another kind of justice, restorative justice,
which is characteristic of traditionai African jurisprudence.

\ consq Thus we would claim that justice, restorative justice, is being served

Figure 4,11 Conjunction between stages and phases in Tutu's exposition

In contrast to Helena’s story, all the connections between stages and phases of
the exposition are internal. We have rendered the relation between the Thesis and
the first Argument as internal succession (firstly), and the following Arguments are
explicitly added to each other (also, Further). Within each Argument, the grounds
expect its conclusion (Thus). Now let’s look at connections within one stage, in
Figure 4.12.
In contrast to Helena’s Incident, this Argument is organized primarily by
internal conjunction. As we discussed earlier, the grounds for this Argument
unfold as a series of conditions that we expect to negate Tutu’s thesis, but are then
countered with In fact. The scope of the conclusion ( Thus) is the grounds as a
whole. This is followed by the example, which we have rendered with (e.g.). This
example unfolds as a sequence of consequences for the security force members,
which we have rendered with (so). The last consequence is not another event, but
Working with Discourse

^The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
> '
cond where the offence is a gross violation of human rights ... defined as an
abduction, killing torture or severe ill-treatment...

cond unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice

< simil (for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open
session).

simil In fact, virtually al! the important applications to the Commission have been
considered in public in the full glare of television lights.

consq Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the
perpetrator.

simil (e.g.) Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had
previously been regarded as respectable members of their communities.

consq'
}
> (so)lt was often the very first time that their communities and even
sometimes their families heard ....
>
consq' (so) For some it has been so traumatic that marriages have broken up.

consq (thus) That is quite a price to pay.

Figure 4.12: Conjunction within one stage of Tutu's exposition

rather Tutu’s conclusion about this penalty (quite a price to pay). Again the scope of
this is the example as a whole, supporting the statement that Thus there is a penalty.,

In Chapter 3 we introduced ideational m etaphor and discussed the experiential

type, in which elements of figures are reconstrued as if they were other kinds of
elements, such as process thing and quality thing. Here we are going to look
at how conjunctions are reconstrued as other kinds of elements, including
processes, things, qualities and circumstances. This is the logical type of ideational
metaphor, or logical metaphor. It is used to reconstrue logical relations between
figures as if they were relations between elements within figures. Logical metaphor
always involves experiential metaphor as well.

Conjunction as process
A common m otif in abstract or technical writing is to present a consequential
conjunction as a process:

such a hearing is likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice

Agent Process Medium
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

This strategy compresses a sequence of two activities into a single figure, by means
f experiential and logical metaphors. Experientially, the Agent and Medium stand
for activities (‘hearing an application’ and ‘miscarrying justice’) that are
reC o n s t r u e d as things (a hearing, a miscarriage). Logically, there is a relation of

- o n s e q u e n c e between these activities (‘if., .then’), which is reconstrued as a process

(is Ukety to lead to). We can unpack such a sequence as a sequence of two figures
re la te d by conjunctions:

if such a hearing happens

then justice will be miscarried.

However the logical m etaphor of ‘relation as process’ incorporates more than

simply consequence. For one thing, the probability of the result is graded as likely
to lead to (in contrast to high probability will certainly lead to or low probability
will possibly lead to). And the necessity of the consequence is also graded
lexically as lead to (in contrast to the stronger result in or weaker associated
with).
So one of the reasons that writers use logical metaphors for conjunctions is that
they can grade their evaluation of relations between events or arguments. This is a
crucial resource for reasoning in fields such as science or politics, in which it is
important not to overstate causal relations until sufficient evidence has been
accumulated. This function of logical metaphors is oriented to engagement of the
reader.
On the other hand, logical metaphors combine with experiential metaphors to
package activity sequences as manageable chunks of information. This function of
logical metaphor is oriented to periodicity. For example, this figure is one step in
the argument that Tutu is advancing:

The Act required that

the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).

In this sequence, Tutu first uses a passive clause to start the first message with the
application and end with a public hearing. The public hearing is then the starting
point for the next message (such a hearing), that ends with a miscarriage of justice.
This is then exemplified in the next step. This sequencing of information is shown
as follows:
 Working with Discourse

The Act required that the application should be deait with in a public hearing

unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice

. "■ ""
(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).

Such patterns of information flow are discussed further in Chapter 6 on

periodicity. Here we can note that the logical metaphor (is likely to lead to)
enables the sequence of cause (such a hearing) and effect (a miscarriage of justice)
to be packaged as chunks of information within a single message.

Conjunction as circumstance
Another common motif in abstract or technical writing is to present a logical
relation as a circumstance:

Is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done?

Medium Process Circumstance {accompaniment)

The logical meaning of at the cost of is concessive purpose {‘without’), giving the
following sequence:

Is amnesty being given

without justice being done?

* Again this strategy enables a sequence of two activities to be packaged as a single

figure, with amnesty as one chunk of information and justice being done as
another. But Tutu’s rhetorical strategy here also includes other layers - the lexical
metaphor the cost o/implies a balance sheet, in which income {amnesty) is weighed
against expenditure [justice). So reconstruing a sequence using this metaphor adds
layers of meaning to the question.

Conjunctions as things and qualities

Conjunction can also be reconstrued as a thing or quality. Here are a few examples
of conjunction as a thing:

conjunction — — — —►thing
before the first time
then sequel
so reason, result, consequence
thus conclusion
by a means to
if condition
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

The fo llo w in g are some examples of these conjunction-as-things in discourse, and

their a lte r n a t i v e realization as a sequence:

Time
Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been
regarded as respectable members of their communities.
ft was often the very first time that their communities and even sometimes their
families heard...
Before they came forward
their communities and even sometimes their families had not heard...

Consequence
Conjunctions have an important role in letting us know what to expect at each step of
a discourse.
This is one reason they tend to come at or near the start of each sentence in English.
Conjunctions let us know what to expect
so they tend to come at or near the start of each sentence in English.

Means
Amnesty didn't matter.
It was only a means to the truth.

The truth would come out

by amnesty being given.

Condition
The only conditions for gaining amnesty were:
« The act for which amnesty was required shouldhave happened between 1960...
and 1994...
« The act must have been politically motivated..,
» The applicant had to make a full disclosure ...
e The rubric of proportionality had to be observed...

Amnesty is gained :
if the act happened between 1960 and 1994
if the act was politically motivated
if applicant made a full disclosure
if the rubric of proportionality was observed

In each case, the logical metaphor allows other meanings to be incorporated. Logical
metaphor enables ‘logical things’ to be numbered, described, classified and qualified:

the very first time

one reason
Working with Discourse

only a means
the only conditions.. .1.. .2.. .3.. .4...

On the other hand, reconstruing conjunction as qualities means they can be used
to modify things or processes:

conjunction ----- g* qUa|ity Qf thing (Epithet or Classifier) or process (Quality)

so resulting action
by enabling action
in fact actual size
thus conclusively proven
then subsequently shown
before previously regarded
if conditionally approved

Here is an example of ‘conjunction-as-quality 5 in Tutu’s argument:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been
regarded ., .as respectable members of their communities.

This could be unpacked as:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward were regarded as
respectable members of their communities before .. .they came forward.

How much we choose to unpack ideational metaphors in our analyses will depend
on our purposes. We have shown two advantages of unpacking experiential and
logical metaphors. One is that by paraphrasing highly metaphorical discourse in a
more spoken form, we can show learners how it means what it does, and also
design a curriculum that leads from more spoken to more written modes. Another
is that we can recover participant roles and logical arguments that tend to be
rendered implicit by ideational metaphor. This can be a powerful tool for critical
discourse analysis - revealing implicit nuclear relations such as agency and effect,
and implicit logical relations such as cause and effect.

A full range of internal and external conjunction types is given in Tables 4.9 and
4.10, together with continuatives in Table 4.11, building in all the options we have
discussed so far. These tables are intended as ready references to help with
identifying the roles of conjunctions in text analysis.
 CONJUNCTION: logical connections

Tabie 4.9 External conjunctions

Addition additive adding and, besides, both.. .and

subtracting nor, neither.. .nor
alternative or, either.. .or, if not.. .then
Comparison similar like, as if
different opposite whereas, white
replacing instead of, in place of, rather than
excepting except that, other than, apart from
Time successive sometime after, since, now that; before
immediate once, as soon as; until
simultaneous as, while, when
Cause expectant because, so, therefore
concessive although, even though, but,
however
Means expectant by, thus
concessive even by, but
Condition open expectant if, then, provided that, as long as
concessive even if, even then
closed unless
Purpose desire expectant so that, in order to, in case
concessive even so, without
fear lest, for fear of

Table 4.10 internal conjunctions

Addition additive adding and, besides, both.. .and

subtracting nor, neither... nor
alternative or, either.. .or, if not.. .then
Comparison similar like, as if
different opposite whereas, while
replacing instead of, in place of, rather than
excepting except that, other than, apart from
Time successive sometime after, since, now that; before
immediate once, as soon as; until
simultaneous as, while, when
Cause expectant because, so, therefore
concessive although, even though, but,
however
Means expectant by, thus
concessive even by, but
Condition open expectant if, then, provided that, as long as
concessive even if, even then
closed unless
Purpose desire expectant so that, in order to, in case
concessive even so, without
fear lest, for fear of
Working with Discourse

Table 4.11 Continuatives

logical relation expectancy

addition neutral too, also, as well

comparison neutral 50 (did he)
less than only, just
more than even
time sooner already
longer finally, at last
persistent still
repetitive again